Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

pilly

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nama are not selling them in small lots but trying to sell them off in large blocks to foreign vulture funds. They are happy to sit on thousands of properties for years as it doesn't cost them anything.

That is a huge problem at the moment. Whole blocks of apartments empty in Tallaght because they're belonged to NAMA. They should be forced to sell them to the local council for social housing.

sondagefaux

pilly wrote: »

foggy_lad wrote: »

Nama are not selling them in small lots but trying to sell them off in large blocks to foreign vulture funds. They are happy to sit on thousands of properties for years as it doesn't cost them anything.

That is a huge problem at the moment. Whole blocks of apartments empty in Tallaght because they're belonged to NAMA. They should be forced to sell them to the local council for social housing.

Then people would be whinging that NAMA was selling them off too cheaply...

Graham

sondagefaux wrote: »

Then people would be whinging that NAMA was selling them off too cheaply...

Or they'd be complaining that they didn't go to private buyers in individual lots.

4ensic15

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

It is considered rental income, just commercial renting rather than residential. As such, all interest is tax deductible.

It is trading income, not commercial renting.

pilly

sondagefaux wrote: »

Then people would be whinging that NAMA was selling them off too cheaply...

Graham wrote: »

Or they'd be complaining that they didn't go to private buyers in individual lots.

So they can't win either way!! How is leaving them empty benefiting anyone? Private buyer, renter or social housing applicant.

People have to realise that all these groups of people aren't enemies. If the social housing problem is solved the pressure will come off all groups. More houses will be available for private rental at reasonable prices and more houses will be for sale at reasonable prices.

sondagefaux

Left empty? Aren't they being sold?

Graham

pilly wrote: »

So they can't win either way!! How is leaving them empty benefiting anyone? Private buyer, renter or social housing applicant.

Who suggested they should be left empty?

Harvey Normal

Graham wrote: »

Or they'd be complaining that they didn't go to private buyers in individual lots.

So why not do that?

Michael D Not Higgins

Harvey Normal wrote: »

So why not do that?

Let's say you have a block of 30 apartments and they're worth 200k each at open market prices. However you bought them for 180k each and someone wants to buy the lot at 190k each. You're 'losing' 300k in the deal but you're still making 300k too with much less hassle and time spent on the process. Remember, those Nama workers cost money and if you have them doing 30 times the work they're going to cost 30 times as much too.

The numbers above are examples and I'm sure at a certain level it makes more sense to do the extra work to get the extra money, but has anyone demonstrated that it's worth doing that?

Graham

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Let's say you have a block of 30 apartments and they're worth 200k each at open market prices. However you bought them for 180k each and someone wants to buy the lot at 190k each. You're 'losing' 300k in the deal but you're still making 300k too with much less hassle and time spent on the process. Remember, those Nama workers cost money and if you have them doing 30 times the work they're going to cost 30 times as much too.

The numbers above are examples and I'm sure at a certain level it makes more sense to do the extra work to get the extra money, but has anyone demonstrated that it's worth doing that?

+1

When selling entire blocks/developments, it's much easier to attach other conditions to the sale. E.g. X must be finished, Y must be built, purchaser must take on Z ongoing obligations/liabilities.

pilly

Graham wrote: »

Who suggested they should be left empty?

No-one is but that's what's happening presently is what I meant.

pilly

sondagefaux wrote: »

Left empty? Aren't they being sold?

Not at the moment, I know of blocks of apartments that have been empty for years and continue to be.

wotswattage

Sharktopus wrote: »

36k is of course significant, however more info is needed on this figure - how many are in probate, are uninhabitable, are currently for sale etc.

The key point on the Airbnb properties is they are for the most part in prime locations that are in high demand.

Sorry for quoting a post from ages ago but it best highlights the issue I'm asking about.

Looking at Daft as a starting point there are approx 1250 properties ready to rent in Dublin city (all property types all lease types). Surely the 1500-2000 air bnb properties (all types) have a huge effect on the current immediate rental market??

I believe it's a huge issue for people looking to move/rent right now.

beauf

Even if you ban AirBnB not all of these will turn into rentals. But assume they do. Look at the bigger picture.

....2011 saw almost 60,000 rental properties listed over the course of the year - a little over half of all rental properties in the capital - the last 12 months have seen just 35,000 listed.... In a labour market where mobility matters, we have ended up with a rental market where tenants are afraid to move.

https://www.daft.ie/report/ronan-lyons-2015q1-rental

An analysis of sales through Sherry FitzGerald offices in the period 2011-2015 shows an estimated loss of over 40,000 rental properties from the market. In essence, for every one new investor coming into the market, two are leaving.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/property/news/lettings-market-key-in-2016-373861.html

Graham

beauf wrote: »

Even if you ban AirBnB not all of these will turn into rentals. But assume they do. Look at the bigger picture.

Thread isn't about the 'bigger picture', AirBnB is one of several specific areas that are putting pressure on the rental market.

beauf

wotswattage wrote: »

...Surely the 1500-2000 air bnb properties (all types) have a huge effect on the current immediate rental market??

I believe it's a huge issue for people looking to move/rent right now.

If we ignore the bigger picture.

Then, if the LL of the apartment a tenant is looking at decides, to stop using AirBNB (or is not allowed to) AND decides to both reduce the rent, and rent traditionally, registering the tenancy etc and all that entails. Then yes.

appfry

AirBnB is going to kill itself soon anyway.
In the last few weeks its unreal, the amount of times i have had instant books cancelled by the hosts along with an offer of over double the price if I want it.
I have stopped using AirBnB altogether now. Used to love it, but its so hard now to book a place to stay using it. Either you try an instant book and get that treatment. Or you try the normal booking route and wait 24 hours to hear that they made a mistake with the price and it is actually double.
Total waste of my time.

Michael D Not Higgins

appfry wrote: »

AirBnB is going to kill itself soon anyway.
In the last few weeks its unreal, the amount of times i have had instant books cancelled by the hosts along with an offer of over double the price if I want it.
I have stopped using AirBnB altogether now. Used to love it, but its so hard now to book a place to stay using it. Either you try an instant book and get that treatment. Or you try the normal booking route and wait 24 hours to hear that they made a mistake with the price and it is actually double.
Total waste of my time.

Is that not against the terms of use by AirBnB? Can you not complain to them about it?

appfry

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Is that not against the terms of use by AirBnB? Can you not complain to them about it?

Ever tried complaining to AirBnB
Not possible. It may have been a few years ago, but they are too big for their boots now. You cant even phone them, and when you trawl through their help section you will get nowhere. Its an even bigger waste of time trying to find a way to complain than trying to book and being told sorry, price is actually double.

athtrasna

Airbnb from a landlord's perspective is an A&P issue. Airbnb from a renter's perspective is something more suited to the travel forum

Last Stop

Sorry for dragging up an old thread but from watching the property documentary on RTE this is clearly still an issue.
Surely the solution is to limit the amount of time a property can be sublet on Airbnb for? Say max of 30 days in a calendar year?
Its taking the piss if people are using Airbnb 365 days a year. Airbnb was never designed for that service.

Samuel T. Cogley

Last Stop wrote: »

Sorry for dragging up an old thread but from watching the property documentary on RTE this is clearly still an issue.
Surely the solution is to limit the amount of time a property can be sublet on Airbnb for? Say max of 30 days in a calendar year?
Its taking the piss if people are using Airbnb 365 days a year. Airbnb was never designed for that service.

I'm not really sure how AirBnB was designed but surely if someone wants to run a little holiday apartment business it's not specifically prohibited? Now personally I think it should probably require some sort of planning, which I'm not convinced it does, but Dublin's accommodation crisis extends to temporary lettings too, which is arguably more damaging to the economy in the short term.

I'm a director in an OMC with a couple of directors who can't stand AirBnB so I do see both sides from a residents perspective, but once they conform to the house rules it's not abig issue from my point of view I must admit.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm not really sure how AirBnB was designed

its original stated goal was to utilise otherwise unused rooms in peoples homes.

Officially, I think that's the line they still stick to.

athtrasna

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I'm a director in an OMC with a couple of directors who can't stand AirBnB so I do see both sides from a residents perspective, but once they conform to the house rules it's not abig issue from my point of view I must admit.

Most house rules /OMC leases I've seen specifically prohibit short term letting though?

Samuel T. Cogley

athtrasna wrote: »

Most house rules /OMC leases I've seen specifically prohibit short term letting though?

Ours doesn't, but I do believe you're right that it's a bit of an oddity. Must point that out to potential buyers! :pac:

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

its original stated goal was to utilise otherwise unused rooms in peoples homes.

Officially, I think that's the line they still stick to.

I didn't know that I have to admit - bit of an oddity though in Ireland as RAR would have predated it and allows tax relief on the income.

Last Stop

My (possibly naive) understanding of how the airbnb concept came about was similar to a house swap.
An example would be: Say you go on holidays, you property is free. Say someone from Spain is going on holidays to Ireland at the same time. There is now a free property in the area you are going and vice versa. Therefore it is a win win situation to make your house available while you are away. There are many benefits to this such as security etc.
Short let means a short period of time. In my opinion it was not designed for this and that is why many cities (Berlin, Manhattan) have now banned airbnb. If its that big a problem then why not just sit down with the company and develop a solution, its in everyone's interest.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I didn't know that I have to admit - bit of an oddity though in Ireland as RAR would have predated it and allows tax relief on the income.

RAR precludes short-term lettings. AirBnB originally appealed to homeowners as a way of making a few quid every now and then without having to share their home on a permanent basis.

There's an article in todays times by Ciara Saddler (sp) that you might be interested in about how her OMC has essentially stopped AirBnB lettings without planning permission.

Eric Cartman

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I didn't know that I have to admit - bit of an oddity though in Ireland as RAR would have predated it and allows tax relief on the income.

Well , its originally a US company so the rules in Ireland wouldn't have been on their minds in development.

The real reason landlords like using AirBnB is firstly - profit, it generates more money. The only way to solve this is to make hotel rooms cheaper somehow.

secondly - long term letting really holds the landlords balls in a vice here. We need to create a 60 day expedited forced eviction process for tenants who are in arrears and the council needs to start paying all landlords directly regardless of the issues going on with the tenant and also insure the property against theft and damage.

beauf

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I didn't know that I have to admit - bit of an oddity though in Ireland as RAR would have predated it and allows tax relief on the income.

The difference AirBnB was it was meant for short term holiday letting. A cheap alternative to Hotels and B&Bs.

The problems with AirBnB though are worldwide.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The only way to solve this is to make hotel rooms cheaper somehow.

Or enforce the existing planning laws.

Spanish Eyes

Rent a Room or two or more tax free. Up to the threshold of course.

As long as you are your are living there <mod snip>

No brainer to let out rooms rather than an RTB nightmare. What do you think?

gizmo81

The enforcement of this is a nightmare. In my previous apartment block two years ago a tenancy became available, it was quickly snapped up. Two women appeared initially, but it quickly became evident that the they weren't living in the apartment and it had been listed on Air BnB.

When a neighbour found the advert, the two bedroom apartment had been split into three units for rent on Air BnB, they had put locks on the two bedrooms and a lock on the kitchen/living room in which they had added a mattress to the living room floor.

The advert warned not to talk to the residents nor press the intercom etc.

We discovered afterwards the landlord had allowed this.

Some of us tenants reported to Fire Prevention and DCC Planning Enforcement, two years later nothing has happened a tenant still resident has informed me.

I left the apartment as in the last three years before I left over 30% of the beds/apartments became illegal Air BnB sublets. Which brought a lot of anti-social behaviour.

Baby01032012

I'm not sure you can classify all apartments let through airbnb as illegal. The DCC case was found to be illegal and related to only one apartment in temple bar. They were careful to state that it would be looked at on a case by case basis.
Simon Coveny is planning to introduce legislation to govern airbnb type lettings. Given the impact they're having on housing in Dublin. You could well see legislation similar to the RTA rules that will make it less favourable to go the alternative route to long term residential lettings.

gizmo81

Sorry i mean't the 30% in my apartment were illegal.

Baby01032012 wrote: »

I'm not sure you can classify all apartments let through airbnb as illegal. The DCC case was found to be illegal and related to only one apartment in temple bar. They were careful to state that it would be looked at on a case by case basis.
Simon Coveny is planning to introduce legislation to govern airbnb type lettings. Given the impact they're having on housing in Dublin. You could well see legislation similar to the RTA rules that will make it less favourable to go the alternative route to long term residential lettings.

gizmo81

gizmo81 wrote: »

Sorry i mean't the 30% in my apartment were illegal.

How do you know they were illegal if your complaints were not acted upon, surely it indicates they aren't bothered? what fire safety issues did you report?

Graham

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

How do you know they were illegal if your complaints were not acted upon

Change of use planning applications are public record. The utter failure of local authorities to meaningfully enforce planning law does not magically make unauthorised change of use any less of a breach.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Change of use planning applications are public record. The utter failure of local authorities to meaningfully enforce planning law does not magically make unauthorised change of use any less of a breach.

Its already been confirmed that airbnb is being ruled on on a case by case basis rather than a blanket decision that its against planning so I would question if what you say is correct.

Graham

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

Its already been confirmed that airbnb is being ruled on on a case by case basis rather than a blanket decision that its against planning so I would question if what you say is correct.

Any source for the ruling? I'd be interested in seeing the details.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Any source for the ruling? I'd be interested in seeing the details.

The OP has the ruling in question I believe. I think it's being interpreted in a number of ways. To my mind what DCC can do is essentially say an area/property can't be used for AirBnB, I distinguish this from enforcing the requirement for a change of use, it's more like DCC saying it's limited use.

My fumbling around with the legalities aside, it does very much seem to be case by case, even if it is, in fact, a matter of enforcement.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My fumbling around with the legalities aside, it does very much seem to be case by case, even if it is, in fact, a matter of enforcement.

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

I've not read the decision so I stand to be corrected but I don't see it that way. People are equating this decision with a binary state and then saying all DCC are doing is not enforcing. I see it (possibly in error but we'd need the case and a discussion of it) as AirBnB can be used in some form everywhere. DCC can then decide it's going to disallow it. That decision can then be appealed. It's difficult to see how an enforcement decision can be appealed - I was under the impression it was only allowed on a point of law?

The fact that a property in Temple Bar is affected doesn't affect something down the road in D8 DCC have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Hence the description of this as almost like a reverse process. Enforcement I would forward is a subtly different process and would mean that a decision like the one in Temple Bar would have general application, from what I can see it does not.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The fact that a property in Temple Bar is affected doesn't affect something down the road in D8 DCC have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Hence the description of this as almost like a reverse process. Enforcement I would forward is a subtly different process and would mean that a decision like the one in Temple Bar would have general application, from what I can see it does not.

Minister for Housing appears to disagree according to a relatively recent reoprt in the Irish Times.

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.
Mr Coveney said landlords should be treated differently to somebody who is allowing someone on holiday to stay in their home for two or three weeks through Airbnb.
He said the planning enforcement distinction made by An Bord Pleanála “is a good way of dealing with this [issue] without having to go through legislative changeâ€.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Minister for Housing appears to disagree according to a relatively recent reoprt in the Irish Times.

Could he have been more vague and equivocated any more? If it's as he suggests why does it need a legislative change?

<mod snip>

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

Its not so clear cut.

Airbnb is planning compliant for definite if the home owner is renting a room in his home even if he is renting a rooms all the time so you cannot have a blanket statement that "airbnb is in breach of planning" or "airbnb full time is in breach of planning"

Airbnb is definitely planning compliant if renting a full house on occasion (i.e. while you are on holiday yourself, out of the country for work which could be very regularly for some) so you cannot have a blanket statement that "renting a full house on airbnb is in breach of planning".

So you are left with a "house let full time on airbnb is in breach of planning" but who is to decide what full time is, what if there is lots of downtime (i.e. no takers for renting it), what if the person does use it themselves as a base in a city, place to stay during holidays etc etc but lets it the rest of the the time on airbnb. What if someone is using it for airbnb all the time but extended lets up to 6 months?

It's very difficult to make a statement about it being in breach of planning as you really can't know for sure unless its judged to be so by a planning authority.

Samuel T. Cogley

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

Its not so clear cut.

Airbnb is planning compliant for definite if the home owner is renting a room in his home even if he is renting a rooms all the time so you cannot have a blanket statement that "airbnb is in breach of planning" or "airbnb full time is in breach of planning"

Airbnb is definitely planing compliant if renting a full house on occasion so you cannot have a blanket statement that "renting a full house on airbnb is in breach of planning".

So you are left with a "house let full time on airbnb is in breach of planning" but who is to decide what full time is, what if there is lots of downtime (i.e. no takers for renting it), what if the person does use it themselves as a base in a city, place to stay during holidays etc etc but lets it the rest of the the time on airbnb. What if someone is using it for airbnb all the time but extended lets up to 6 months?

It's very difficult to make a statement about it being in breach of planning as you really can't know for sure unless its judged to be so by a planning authority.

To be fair Nox, I think you take a very literal view sometimes. If the LL is not resident and it's available 365, just no one takes it that's still full time.

I have to agree with you though that it's not as clear cut as Coveney is suggesting, but it bloody well should be, but is he going to piss off AirBnB - of course not. We'll just dance around it nudging and winking.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If it's as he suggests why does it need a legislative change?

I think he's right, it doesn't need a legislative change, it needs enforcement of the existing planning legislation.

__Alex__

I can see discretion being used. For example, I can see an owner of a remote holiday home being allowed to rent it out as much as they want. But in high density housing, such as apartments, terraced houses and semi-ds, I reckon thinks will be more restrictive. The owners of these types of dwellings are more likely to get reported too as the chance for recurrent disruption of neighbours is greater.

Graham

__Alex__ wrote: »

I can see discretion being used. For example, I can see an owner of a remote holiday home being allowed to rent it out as much as they want. But in high density housing, such as apartments, terraced houses and semi-ds, I reckon thinks will be more restrictive. The owners of these types of dwellings are more likely to get reported too as the chance for recurrent disruption of neighbours is greater.

That would probably be a sensible approach.

__Alex__

Graham wrote: »

That would probably be a sensible approach.

I think so. Surely it'd be good to have those rural holiday homes in use year-round? Brings in money to small communities. Some American friends of mine use their holiday home about eight weeks of the year themselves, spread out over the year. The house is really near the Burren and the Cliffs of Moher. We used to get to use the house a few weekends a year before AirBnB. They used some other letting agency and got a few bookings a year which they were happy enough with. When they switched to AirBnB, the whole thing blew up and now when they are not there, there are wall-to-wall bookings. It's great for them, and they also have a friend in Ireland who used to clean the house for them after each booker left. She's a mother with three young kids so it's a handy number for her while the kids are at school and she's got a lot more work since they started booking through AirBnB. So this is a success story which is why it shouldn't be completely outlawed. But high density is different, so I think a case-by-case system would be the best way.